The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1887-01-25

1 E0nuUQS dSkCO 1A6dl4o hueLUGl
be meant to say that any act which the
| people of the United States might con-
slider a violation of the treaty was ne
cessari'y a causuS bella.
Ingalls-I mean to say that declared
and avowed and continued violations OF
the treaty obligations or ofinternationaI
law, are c0uSuS beLti.
Edmunds-It does not necessarily
follow that every branch Of treaty is to
be followed by war.
Ingalls-How about continuous, de-
Hibernate, wilfui violation of treaty?
Edmunds-Thas is different thing.
IngaIIs-That is this case. This
trouble has got to be settled, so far as
this Dill is concerned, either By dIplo-
macy or by blood. England has always
been rutfian, coward and a bully
among the nations of the earth /;
insolent to the weak, tyrannical to the
feeble, and cringing and obse luious to
the strong. Her history for centuries
! has been record of crime against the
human race. In Ireland, in Scotland,
in Wales, against Roman Catholics,
against the Beers of South Africa,
against the Hindoos and Chinese
wherever there mas been feeble. weak
helpless nation, Great Britain has been
there for the purpose of rapacity, plum
der and conquest. England bears no
good will to this country. The mem
DRY of two defeats rankles, dare say,
in the breasts of Englishmen. When
say that Great Britain is not friendly
to this country, mean that the ruling
classes are unfriendly to this country.
Her course has been always one OF
wrong, insolence and outrage. England
| cheated the south with false hopes of
recognition and injured the north by a
violation Of neutrality. / believe that
there is no special reciprocity of good
will on the part of America towards
England. There are few Americans
who do not regret Waterloo. There
are few Americans who do not recog-
nize the fact that the course OF England
toward this country has been one of in
science and suspicion and outrage from
the beginning of our national existence.
If read this transaction Alright, there
| is no purpose on the part of Great
| Britain to secure a, peaceful, solu-
| ton, pacific Interpretation of
the doubtful provisions of the treaty of
1913, but rather deliberate purpose, so
| far, to foment irritation and discomfort
between Canada and the United States
as to prevent paci6cation in the i'm
mediate future, which would be in
| evitable if both people were left to the
operation of the natural laws of trade
and society. | see very plainly what the
purpose of Great Britain has been in
the matter. She desires to render it
impossible for free, friendly reciprocal
relations political and otherwise) to
exist between Canada and the United
States. Therefore, l was glad to hear
of the Interpretation placed on the pro-
posed legislation by the Senator from
Maine (Mr. Frye) that so far as he is
concerned it is to be declaration to
Great Britain recognizing her agency
| and her power in the matter) that she
will persist further at her peril.
| Evarts argued in support .of the bill
which he said was not in the nature of
a menace, or tending at all in that
direction. 1t was the duty of Congress
to take the subject away from local dis
turbance, irritation and resentment. So
far from the bill tending to war, or
tending to umbrage, it was intended to
have the contrary effect. 1t was an i'm
mediate announcement to the people
that they had only to trust their pro-
lection, not to personal resentment but
| to the government of the United States,
and when the opening summer
should bring about a recurrence of
the fishery season and of fishing
dangers, the question would be removed
from that theatre of collision and (if
not concluded) it would be under the
control of both governments in the de
| liberate consideration of what should
be done in order to have stability OF
intercourse, in order to give stability to
the peace and dignity of the two great
nations, the United States and Great
| Britain.
Hale declared himself earnestly in
favor of the bill. Its provisions were
not to harass, but to moderate; not
rash, bat well considered. and he be-
lleved that those provisions, when en-
acted into a law and carried out by
the executive, would be efficacious. u
Hoar declared it to be his opinion
that the proceedings of the Canadian
authorities in this matter were under
taken for the purpose of interfering
with matter which is purely OF their
own domestic concern. 1t was not that
Canada might catch fish without mo-
lestation, it was that she might sell fish
without the interference of the Ameri-
can tariff policy. He regarded this at
tempt by foreign power to enforce
upon tnS Oulteu StdCeS dSdtuSt Jul VIII
a certain domestic policy, as one OF
the most emphatic and fragrant acts OF
hostility thav could be committed
/ short af actual war. He did not under
sfand, however, with the Senator from
Kansas that the object of this measure
was to bring about either war or further
diplomacy. 1t was merely saying to
the British government and the Do
minlon of Canada that SO long at they
| attempt TO interfere With our domestic
arrangement in this way, so long
they should not be permitted to sell
their FISH or other products in Amerl-
can markets at sll.
Senator Morgan follow ed Hoar.
| Vest argued in favor of the bill.
+ Riddleberger opposed the bill because
it was In the nature of a treaty with
! Great Britain. He wanted no treaty.
The amendment offered by Vest for
the appointment of commissioner to
take testimony in regard to the losses
and injuries inflicted by the British
authorities upon American fishermen
was lost--yeas II, nays q. a.it
The. bill was then passed-yeas IS,
nays l. ,,S es5sz 81 81
The ttyt of tho hill VOC cbarCed only